On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 18:59:45 -0500 gatesphere <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/8/2014 6:01 PM, Terry Brown wrote: > > branches (which I know are just tags) > They are more than tags, less than forks. They are *not* tags. And a > deleted branch once merged into master has no real use -- the whole > branch's history is contained in the merge commit. Just seems to me that the branch name is a useful label for that piece of history, minimizing the time you have to spend thinking about what was being merged. So partly a convention of a succinct identification of what was being merge on the first line of the merge commit message, which is what most history visualizers are probably going to display, would cover what I'm talking about. But that seems more fragile than just leaving the branch non-tag ;-) in place. What I should do, duh, is see what merges look like in the repo on github... hmm. Ok, there isn't really a difference between them, the `bzr qloq` view was seeming easier to follow for some reason. Ha, but not easier than the `qgit` viewer, so it's just a case of history viewer preferences :) Ok, getting to esoteric now :-) Cheers -Terry -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
